Except he's been trying to help solve the economic issues... whether you call it fact or fiction, I'd have thought you'd have been happy he's actually doing something other talk about the War on Terror.

This bailout deal is the first noteworthy (not necessarily good) thing he's done in months. Most of his time previous seems to have been spent on tasks which could be considered time-fillers. And that doesn't even mention his unwillingness to answer any questions from the press at his (very) brief and few press conferences in recent months. I think the economy crashing may have actually reminded him that there are a lot of things he's responsible for . . .

I'm guessing that you're audience skews younger, so this won't totally be true, but you do realize that when you go political, you're collectively slapping the faces of half the potential audience out there that might otherwise enjoy the slice of life pictures you create.

Pelosi is still complaining about failed economic policies (did so today, in fact). Except that for the LAST TWO YEARS or so, *she* is the person most responsible for setting economic policy. Everything starts in the House and she runs the House.

(x, why?) & anonymous: it's her blog. if she wants to get political & liberal, she's allowed to get political & liberal. if you'd rather not be "slapped in the face," you don't have to continue reading.

The "slap" mentioned above needs to swing both ways, don't you think? While George W. Bush hasn't been the perfect president (who ever has been?), the Congress has been the absolute worse, maybe in history. Gives a new meaning to "do nothing Congress..." The only thing they have done is kill our economy. Two years ago, before they came into power, did you hear any democrat complaining about the economy? No! It was all about the war...now, with them in power, it is the economy. Is there a correlation here? Sure seems to be!

Come on! Do you really believe the economic situation that lead to the current crisis is less than two years old? What, there was no subprime before the Democrats got Congress? There was no government hyperborrowing?

In regards to the comments, some of you seem to be tripping over a common logical fallacy. Post hoc ergo propter hoc - after this, therefore caused by this. Yes, the opposition party took over the congress. And then the economic disaster, which had been looming on the horizon for a long time, finally happened. Yes, there is a chronological proximity, but that does not imply causation.

It's better to look at the root causes of our current economic woes, and then if you want to play the blame game, trace those back to where they originated. The repeal of glass-steagall comes to mind, among other things.

I generally love this blog, even when you take shots that I don't agree with. But, bearing in mind the actual atrocities committed by Bin Laden, I have to say that this comparison seems unfair and, more importantly, in really really poor taste.

Oh and if you disagree with that, read the article carefully. I think we can agree that statistics carry at least some weak prediction power for future performances. Then, please, explain to me why do you think it is a good idea to increase income inequality.

Certainly the almighty statistic is infallible. However, just to point something else out, let's do some math.

Since Nixon, here are the breakdowns for inflation by presidential party:

Dems: 4.995% (must round to 5.00, as we have only three digits)Reps: 4.66%

The latter is inflated for two reasons:1. Holdover from the Carter administration (note: Carter was not the initial cause of inflation).2. Two years of oil crisis, which certainly is beyond the control of a president.

Let us assume this holds, however.

Ratio of income level to inflation:Dems: 0.56% increaseReps: 0.35% increase

This implies, with as much correlational (but not causal, as the NYT 'article' implies) truth as Professor Blunder says, that the difference is really not so big. However, two things:

1. Presidents have about as much control over both inflation and income as you and I do.2. Blinder's article does not point out that taxes for the lower middle class will actually be higher under Obama than under McCain (see the former's medical tax cuts for the working class).

That said, perhaps I tend to vote Republican because I am a racist, anti-feminist, anti-unionist, anti-educationist, closed-minded... whatever. I know I'm not, and that's good enough for me.

~ISammael

P.S. My main point is that Blinder takes this information as causal, when any social economist would scoff at that notion.

You have the right to quip, but not to whine. If you find yourself in a debate, make sure you add to it, not take away from it.Most of the people here are doing a great job of this. Back-pats all around.

It's not the absolute growth that is interesting. Yes the general economic growth is probably more influenced by other factors, which Prof. Blinder (by the way very clever word play there ...) also pointed out.But the interesting part is how this growth is divided up. And to me the table in the article speaks miles.

And as a side (a note on causality if you will) tax cuts do not imply income growth ...

Well, by reading this blog, you are subjecting yourself to being slapped in the face. I think that, however, you would not be at fault for arguing against the card, but to say something stupid like "Oh, now I remember why I don't read this" is just complaining. Or whining. Or whatever you want to call it, its all semantics.

2. Blinder's article does not point out that taxes for the lower middle class will actually be higher under Obama than under McCain (see the former's medical tax cuts for the working class).

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/01/us/politics/01mccain.html -- not true, because those tax credits for health care would also mean you paying taxes on that health care. That's also ignoring the fact that McCain's credit covers $5000... when the average cost of health insurance is $12,500.

The thing people don't realize is that the GOP isn't a conservative party, it's a fundamentalist party. They grow the government and waste tax dollars just as badly if not worse than the Democratic party. See the past eight years. I really wish that a party with actual conservative principles (small government, low taxes, protecting the constitution) would either displace or rise out of the current Republican party. There are some good looking third party candidates, but America's political system doesn't really have room for them.